Neoadjuvant letrozole plus taselisib versus letrozole plus placebo in postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer (LORELEI): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Endocrine therapy-based neoadjuvant treatment for luminal breast cancer allows efficient testing of new combinations before surgery. The activation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway is a known mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy. Taselisib is an oral, selective PI3K inhibitor with enhanced activity against PIK3CA-mutant cancer cells. The LORELEI trial tested whether taselisib in combination with letrozole would result in an increased proportion of objective responses and pathological complete responses. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-cohort, placebo-controlled phase 2, study, we enrolled postmenopausal women (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed, oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative, stage I-III, operable breast cancer, from 85 hospitals in 22 countries worldwide. To be eligible, patients had have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1, adequate organ function, and had to have evaluable tumour tissue for PIK3CA genotyping. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of a permuted block algorithm (block size of four) via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally, continuously) with either 4 mg of oral taselisib or placebo (on a 5 days-on, 2 days-off schedule) for 16 weeks, followed by surgery. Randomisation was stratified by tumour size and nodal status. Site staff, patients, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. Coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response by centrally assessed breast MRI and a locally assessed pathological complete response in the breast and axilla (ypT0/Tis, ypN0) at surgery in all randomly assigned patients and in patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumours. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02273973, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Nov 12, 2014, and Aug 12, 2016, 334 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive letrozole and placebo (n=168) or letrozole and taselisib (n=166). Median follow-up was 4·9 months (IQR 4·7-5·1). The study met one of its primary endpoints: the addition of taselisib to letrozole was associated with a higher proportion of patients achieving an objective response in all randomly assigned patients (66 [39%] of 168 patients in the placebo group vs 83 [50%] of 166 in the taselisib group; odds ratio [OR] 1·55, 95% CI 1·00-2·38; p=0·049) and in the PIK3CA-mutant subset (30 [38%] of 79 vs 41 [56%] of 73; OR 2·03, 95% CI 1·06-3·88; p=0·033). No significant differences were observed in pathological complete response between the two groups, either in the overall population (three [2%] of 166 in the taselisib group vs one [1%] of 168 in the placebo group; OR 3·07 [95% CI 0·32-29·85], p=0·37) or in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort (one patient [1%) vs none [0%]; OR not estimable, p=0·48). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the taselisib group were gastrointestinal (13 [8%] of 167 patients), infections (eight [5%]), and skin-subcutaneous tissue disorders (eight [5%]). In the placebo group, four (2%) of 167 patients had grade 3 or worse vascular disorders, two (1%) had gastrointestinal disorders, and two (1%) patients had grade 3 or worse infections and infestations. There was no grade 4 hyperglycaemia and grade 3 cases were asymptomatic. Serious adverse events were more common in the taselisib group (eight [5%] patients with infections and seven [4%] with gastrointestinal effects) than in the placebo group (one [1%] patient each with grade 3 postoperative wound and haematoma infection, grade 4 hypertensive encephalopathy, grade 3 acute cardiac failure, and grade 3 breast pain). One death occurred in the taselisib group, which was not considered to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The increase in the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response from the addition of taselisib to endocrine therapy in a neoadjuvant setting is consistent with the clinical benefit observed in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: Genentech and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Phase II Study of Taselisib (GDC-0032) in Combination with Fulvestrant in Patients with HER2-Negative, Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.

Purpose: This single-arm, open-label phase II study evaluated the safety and efficacy of taselisib (GDC-0032) plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer.Patients and Methods: Patients received 6-mg oral taselisib capsules daily plus intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumor tissue (if available) was centrally evaluated for PIK3CA mutations. Adverse events (AE) were recorded using NCI-CTCAE v4.0. Tumor response was investigator-determined using RECIST v1.1.Results: Median treatment duration was 4.6 (range: 0.9-40.5) months. All patients experienced ≥1 AE, 30 (50.0%) had grade ≥3 AEs, and 19 (31.7%) experienced 35 serious AEs. Forty-seven of 60 patients had evaluable tissue for central PIK3CA mutation testing [20 had mutations, 27 had no mutation detected (MND)]. In patients with baseline measurable disease, clinical activity was observed in tumors with PIK3CA mutations [best confirmed response rate: 38.5% (5/13; 95% CI, 13.9-68.4); clinical benefit rate (CBR): 38.5% (5/13; 95% CI, 13.9-68.4)], PIK3CA-MND [best confirmed response rate: 14.3% (3/21; 95% CI, 3.0-36.3); CBR: 23.8% (5/21; 95% CI, 8.2-47.2)], and unknown PIK3CA mutation status [best confirmed response rate: 20.0% (2/10; 95% CI, 2.5-55.6); CBR: 30.0% (3/10; 95% CI, 6.7-65.2)].Conclusions: Taselisib plus fulvestrant had clinical activity irrespective of PIK3CA mutation status, with numerically higher objective response rate and CBR in patients with PIK3CA-mutated (vs. -MND) locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative, HR-positive breast cancer. No new safety signals were reported. A confirmatory phase III trial is ongoing. Clin Cancer Res; 24(18); 4380-7. ©2018 AACR.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of Taselisib, an Oral PI3K Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

Taselisib is a potent and selective tumor growth inhibitor through PI3K pathway suppression. Thirty-four patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors were treated (phase I study, modified 3+3 dose escalation; 5 cohorts; 3-16 mg taselisib once-daily capsule). Taselisib pharmacokinetics were dose-proportional; mean half-life was 40 hours. Frequent dose-dependent, treatment-related adverse events included diarrhea, hyperglycemia, decreased appetite, nausea, rash, stomatitis, and vomiting. At 12 and 16 mg dose levels, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were observed, with an accumulation of higher-grade adverse events after the cycle 1 DLT assessment window. Pharmacodynamic findings showed pathway inhibition at ≥3 mg in patient tumor samples, consistent with preclinical PIK3CA-mutant tumor xenograft models. Confirmed response rate was 36% for PIK3CA-mutant tumor patients with measurable disease [5/14: 4 breast cancer (3 patients at 12 mg); 1 non-small cell lung cancer], where responses started at 3 mg, and 0% in patients with tumors without known PIK3CA hotspot mutations (0/15).Significance: Preliminary data consistent with preclinical data indicate increased antitumor activity of taselisib in patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumors (in comparison with patients with tumors without known activating PIK3CA hotspot mutations) starting at the lowest dose tested of 3 mg, thereby supporting higher potency for taselisib against PIK3CA-mutant tumors. Cancer Discov; 7(7); 704-15. ©2017 AACR.See related commentary by Rodon and Tabernero, p. 666This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 653.

Monoclonal antibodies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor: current status and future challenges in cancer therapy.

The use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway has been a significant addition to cancer therapy. One of the VEGF family members, VEGF-A (commonly referred to as VEGF), has been demonstrated to be important in angiogenesis. Although the mechanism of action of these antibodies is still under study, the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab has been approved for treatment of various solid cancers including colorectal, lung, and breast cancers as well as glioblastoma and renal cell carcinoma. Addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy as adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer did not improve disease-free survival. Bevacizumab is being tested in other clinical settings such as adjuvant therapy, maintenance therapy, and in combination with both chemotherapy and other targeted agents such as the epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor erlotinib. In addition to bevacizumab, other antibody-based therapies targeting the VEGF pathway are being tested. Ramucirumab and IMC-18F1 are monoclonal antibodies that target the VEGF receptors VEGFR-2 and VEGFR-1, respectively. Aflibercept (VEGF-Trap), a peptide-antibody fusion targeting VEGF ligand, is being tested in clinical trials. Much research is focused on identifying biomarkers to predict which patients will benefit from anti-VEGF therapy. Recent results suggest that VEGF single nucleotide polymorphisms may be predictive of patient response to bevacizumab. Improved imaging modalities such as dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) can better characterize the efficacy of anti-angiogenic agents. As anti-VEGF treatments such as bevacizumab have been integrated into the treatment of many different types of cancers, the development of bevacizumab-resistant tumors has become more common. Recent studies show that targeting other angiogenesis signaling pathways such as platelet-derived growth factor-C (PDGF-C), Bombina variagata peptide 8 (Bv8, also known as prokineticin-2), and VEGFR-3 may lead to enhanced response in anti-VEGF resistant tumors. In the future, tailored treatments consisting of combinations of chemotherapy, other targeted therapies, and anti-angiogenesis agents will hopefully result in better patient outcomes.

Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of NSCLC: an update.

Pemetrexed disodium is a multitargeted antifolate cytotoxic chemotherapy agent approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma, and in August 2004 for second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In September 2008, the FDA also approved pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line therapy for NSCLC. Pemetrexed is also no longer recommended for treatment of NSCLC with squamous cell carcinoma histology. Pemetrexed is currently being tested in clinical trials as part of second-line combination, first-line, adjuvant and maintenance therapies.

Oncogenic regulators and substrates of the anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome are frequently overexpressed in malignant tumors.

The fidelity of cell division is dependent on the accumulation and ordered destruction of critical protein regulators. By triggering the appropriately timed, ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis of the mitotic regulatory proteins securin, cyclin B, aurora A kinase, and polo-like kinase 1, the anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C) ubiquitin ligase plays an essential role in maintaining genomic stability. Misexpression of these APC/C substrates, individually, has been implicated in genomic instability and cancer. However, no comprehensive survey of the extent of their misregulation in tumors has been performed. Here, we analyzed more than 1600 benign and malignant tumors by immunohistochemical staining of tissue microarrays and found frequent overexpression of securin, polo-like kinase 1, aurora A, and Skp2 in malignant tumors. Positive and negative APC/C regulators, Cdh1 and Emi1, respectively, were also more strongly expressed in malignant versus benign tumors. Clustering and statistical analysis supports the finding that malignant tumors generally show broad misregulation of mitotic APC/C substrates not seen in benign tumors, suggesting that a "mitotic profile" in tumors may result from misregulation of the APC/C destruction pathway. This profile of misregulated mitotic APC/C substrates and regulators in malignant tumors suggests that analysis of this pathway may be diagnostically useful and represent a potentially important therapeutic target.

Overexpression of the anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome inhibitor Emi1 leads to tetraploidy and genomic instability of p53-deficient cells.

The anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C) is an E3 ubiquitin ligase that controls the cell cycle by directing the ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis of S-phase and mitosis promoting factors. Emi1 is an E2F transcriptional target that drives cell cycle progression from G1/S through early mitosis by inhibiting the APC/C's ubiquitin ligase activity, and thus facilitates accumulation of APC/C substrates. Using cell culture model systems, we found that Emi1 overexpression leads to proliferation, tetraploidy and genome instability of cells deficient for p53. We propose that loss of pRb repression of E2F-mediated transcription causing misregulation of Emi1 and APC/C substrates results in the generation of tetraploidy and proliferation of genomically unstable cells in the absence of normal p53 function. This represents a potentially important mechanism by which pRb and p53 dysfunction may contribute to tumorigenesis through the generation of genomic instability.

Prophase destruction of Emi1 by the SCF(betaTrCP/Slimb) ubiquitin ligase activates the anaphase promoting complex to allow progression beyond prometaphase.

Progression through mitosis occurs because cyclin B/Cdc2 activation induces the anaphase promoting complex (APC) to cause cyclin B destruction and mitotic exit. To ensure that cyclin B/Cdc2 does not prematurely activate the APC in early mitosis, there must be a mechanism delaying APC activation. Emi1 is a protein capable of inhibiting the APC in S and G2. We show here that Emi1 is phosphorylated by Cdc2, and on a DSGxxS consensus site, is subsequently recognized by the SCF(betaTrCP/Slimb) ubiquitin ligase and destroyed, thus providing a delay for APC activation. Failure of betaTrCP-dependent Emi1 destruction stabilizes APC substrates and results in mitotic catastrophe including centrosome overduplication, potentially explaining mitotic deficiencies in Drosophila Slimb/betaTrCP mutants. We hypothesize that Emi1 destruction relieves a late prophase checkpoint for APC activation.

E2F-dependent accumulation of hEmi1 regulates S phase entry by inhibiting APC(Cdh1).

Emi1 promotes mitotic entry in Xenopus laevis embryos by inhibiting the APC(Cdc20) ubiquitination complex to allow accumulation of cyclin B. We show here that human Emi1 (hEmi1) functions to promote cyclin A accumulation and S phase entry in somatic cells by inhibiting the APC(Cdh1) complex. At the G1-S transition, hEmi1 is transcriptionally induced by the E2F transcription factor, much like cyclin A. hEmi1 overexpression accelerates S phase entry and can override a G1 block caused by overexpression of Cdh1 or the E2F-inhibitor p105 retinoblastoma protein (pRb). Depleting cells of hEmi1 through RNA interference prevents accumulation of cyclin A and inhibits S phase entry. These data suggest that E2F can activate both transcription of cyclin A and the hEmi1-dependent stabilization of APC(Cdh1) targets, such as cyclin A, to promote S phase entry.